Neals v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Neals v. State

77 So. 3d 249, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 502, 2012 WL 126594

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 18, 2012

DocketNo. 4D10-3142

StatusPublished

This text of 77 So. 3d 249 (Neals v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Neals v. State, 77 So. 3d 249, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 502, 2012 WL 126594 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Tyrice Neals seeks review of an order denying his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand.

At issue is the minimum mandatory sentence resulting from Neals’ possession of a firearm. In its response to this Court’s show cause order, the State acknowledges that it is unclear on the record before this Court whether Neals stipulated to the fact that he had actual possession of a firearm, a condition precedent to his minimum mandatory sentence. See, e.g., Blanc v. State, 899 So.2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Consequently, we remand this matter to the trial court for attachment of specific records to refute the claim, or for resen-tencing if no such documents exist.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

GROSS, TAYLOR and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Tyrice Neals seeks review of an order denying his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand.

At issue is the minimum mandatory sentence resulting from Neals’ possession of a firearm. In its response to this Court’s show cause order, the State acknowledges that it is unclear on the record before this Court whether Neals stipulated to the fact that he had actual possession of a firearm, a condition precedent to his minimum mandatory sentence. See, e.g., Blanc v. State, 899 So.2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Consequently, we remand this matter to the trial court for attachment of specific records to refute the claim, or for resen-tencing if no such documents exist.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

GROSS, TAYLOR and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 So. 3d 249, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 502, 2012 WL 126594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neals-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack